Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	reason_n	see_v	3,316	5	3.1434	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70632	An answer to Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda, or, Some things to be added in his Answer to Sir Thomas Mainwarings book written by the said Sir Thomas Mainwaring.	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1674 (1674)	Wing M298; ESTC R18031	20,134	55

Sorore and p. 570. he is said to be propinquus Regi consanguinitate Also Knighton col 2417. n. 42. thus says of her Rex Johannes dedit filiam suam Leolino Principi Walliae in uxorem cum ea dedit castellum totum territorium de Ellesmere in confinio Walliae And the King himself in the aforesaid Record gives her the title of filiae nostrae Also in Lib. Barlings in which Book besides what concernes the Abby of Barlings in Lincolnshire there are certain Annals beginning An. 1050. and ending An. 1231. she is called the said Kings daughter without the Addition of Bastard For as I am informed by a judicious person who at my request did lately search the said Book in Sir Iohn Cottons Library these words Lewelinus disponsavit filiam Regis I. are the only words fol. 22. b. which concern the said matter And yet you in the 2d Page of your Addenda do say That the said Joane Lib. Barlings Fol. 22. b. is acknowledged and called base daughter of K. John I hope therefore the Reader will take heed how farr he gives credit to what you say Neither have I as yet found any Author who lived in that Age with her who hath said that she was a Bastard Indeed our later Authors as Vincent and others who say that she was illegitimate do many of them say That King Iohn was divorced from his second wife as well for that she was barren as within the degrees of consanguinity which barrenness if it could be made to appear would certainly prove the said Ioane to be a Bastard And this opinion hath so far prevailed in this last age that whereas learned Mr. Cambden as you may see in his Britannia in Latine printed at London 1607. p. 259. speaking of the Divorce of the said Hawisia whose name he mistakes and calls Isabel doth only use these words illam repudiatam Doctor Philemon Holland in the English Translation unjustly renders it thus That King John did repudiate her upon pretences as well that she was barren as that they were within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity But our antient Historians say nothing of her being Barren For this see Hoveden who was living all the time that Hawisia was wife to K. John p. 803. n. 34. in the year 1200. Eodem Anno factum est divortium inter Johannem regem Angliae et Hawisam uxorem ejus filiam Willielmi comitis Gloucestrriae per Heliam Burdegalensem Archiepiscopum per Willielmum Pictavensem per Henricum Sanctonensem episcopos erant enim affines in tertio gradu consanguinitatis Facto itaque Divortio inter Johannem regent Angliae uxorent suam ipse Rex Angliae consilio domini sui Philippi regis Franciae duxit sibi in uxorem Isabel filiam Ailmari comitis de Engolismo c. So also Mat. Paris living in the time of the said Ioane p. 200. n. 23. in the said year 1200. Eodem tempore celebrato Divortio inter Regem Anglorum uxoorem suam Hawisam comitis Gloverniae filiam eo quod affines erant in tertio gradu consanguinitis Duxit idem Rex consilio Regis Francorum Isabel filiam comitis Engolismi So also Mat. Westminster in that Edition printed at London 1570. lib. 2. p. 76. n. 25. Anno gratiae M. CC. Rex Johannes Isabellam filiam comitis Engolismi duxit in uxorem Dominica proxima ante festum sancti Dyonisii consecrata est in reginam ab Huberto Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo quia celebratum fuit divortium inter ipsum Hawisiam comitis Gloverniae filiam eo quod contingebant se in tertio consanguinitatis gradu Now certainly these antient Authors must needs in this point be credited before those that lived so long after them and especially since all those that I have met with who say she was barren or do call her a Bastard do not one of them know her true Christian-name but are either silent therein or else which the most of them do do call her Isabel instead of Hawisia See also the words of Rad. de Diceto who lived in the time of the said King Iohn col 706. n. 5. which words are these Celebratum est divortium inter Johannem regem Angliae filiam comitis Glocestriae in Normannia ab episcopis Lisoriensi Baiocensi Abrincensi aliis episcopis qui interfuerant quam ipse tempore patris permissione Romanae ecclesiae duxerat in uxorem cum Comitatibus de Glocestria de Sumersatum de Devenesire de Cornwaille et aliis quamplurimis per Angliam honoribus Set ille sublimioris thori spe raptatus consilio pravorum cam abegit unde magnam summi Pontificis scilicet Innocentii tertii et totius curiae Romanae indignationem incurrit praesumens temere contra leges et canones dissolvere quod eorum fuerat auctoritate colligatum And now let any man judge if she had been barren whether that would not have been alleadged as a cause of King Iohns putting her away as well as his desire of matching into a more sublime family So that I see no reason to conclude the said Ioane to be a Bastard until it be proved that she was so by some Record Deed or good Author who lived in that Age and especially since the said Hawisia's daughter if she had one might very well be old enough in the year 1204. to be married to the said Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales But it is not material to the case in hand whether the said Ioane was a Bastard or not Because all the Gifts you mention in your Addenda were either not gifts in free-marriage or else were not given to the said Lhewellin with the said Ioane As to what you say in your 7 Page I did in my former Book give you several Reasons why the words of Glanvil did not prove what you supposed they did and in the 38 and 39 Pages of my Reply did tell you how you had left them unanswered and did also there nform you that Mr. Glanvil did not say That Lands might be given with any woman in liberum maritagium but only in maritagium and yet after all this you have the confidence again to father upon Mr. Glanvil what he never either meant or said In your 8. Page you say I have charged you with many absolute untruths and gross absurdities and in stead of modest and clear Answers to the very point or hinge of the controversie did burst out into extravagant expressions in things upon the By which gives you occasion to imagine that I think my cause declining But those and several other of your expressions seeming to proceed more from passion then reason I shall at present pass them by and do not doubt but I shall be able to clear my self from any thing which you have or can particularly charge me withal And whereas you pretend that my confidence did arise because you are tied up by your Promise to